Probably because for a period of time, union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism was really close and on the verge of happening, but then the liberalization occurred and ruined it. I suppose the affinity for Anglicans is probably rooted in the lost hope that maybe the closeness we once had will return.

I'd like to see any actual evidence that it was close to happening.

Ecumenical PAtriarch Meletius had the Holy Synod accept Anglican orders as valid. As far as I know, this decision is still "valid" too.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

You mean like common ownership and use of the chalice on some sort of rotating schedule?

I think limiting concelebration to communing is a rather narrow and inaccurate definition, and convenient too. There's a whole lot of liturgical celebration that liturgical ministers do before you get to the Communion, and you need not "concelebrate" to receive Communion. But if Communion is where the line is drawn, then almost anything can be justified as long as you don't cross that line. Your particular definition is not Orthodox by any recognised Orthodox standard.

In the case Gunnarr brought up, the Greek ambassador claims the bishop vested. If this is simply a matter of showing up in a mantia and carrying a staff, then I'd lean toward not considering this an example of concelebration. "Taking part" in an Anglican service can mean a number of things, as can "praying with Anglicans". Preaching and blessing is not wrong by any reasonable standard.

On the other hand, a Greek ambassador presumably knows the difference between ecclesiastical "street wear" and liturgical vestments. Were these vestments? And what was the intent behind venerating the altar? I don't know if you can absolutely rule out concelebration in this case, there's not enough information, even though I think it probably wasn't concelebration.

As it relates back to the topic, what made me visit an Episcopal church was that the traditions seemed older, the sacraments meant something, and it felt more traditional than having a rock band play at you. The Catholic church I then visited was actually far less traditional and a lot more like a Methodist service. I then went to another and it was about the same. ... I just found it interesting that the Episcopal service was more "high" than either of the two Catholic services I went to.

Yep. Ironic.

One theory behind that fact in American Catholicism is from the musicologist Thomas Day. He says that even before Vatican II, American Catholics weren't really high-church because when they were persecuted back in Ireland they couldn't have showy religion.

Episcopalianism is semi-congregational so maybe until recently it was possible to have Episcopal parishes that were more conservative and more 'Catholic' than Catholic ones. Got the benefit of that as a kid.

Of all the Protestant denominations, why does the Orthodox Church seem to have more affinity for Anglicans than all others? The Anglican church seems to have deviated further from Orthodox values than any other mainstream denomination. They even elect homosexual "bishops." So, I am confused as to why we Orthodox seem to profess more kinship with Anglicans than other Protestant denominations - especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce. All I can surmise is that the Anglicans are at least sacramental, but the Lutherans are too. And I personally have more respect for those that deny the sacraments than for those who profess to validate the sacraments while teaching demonic heresies. Can you guys help me understand? Forgive my ignorance.

Selam

Lutherans only accept Baptism, Absolution, and Communion as Sacraments by and large. I don't believe any Protestants except the Anglicans (and not all of them) accept all seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church, which are basically the same Sacraments as in the Orthodox Church (we can fight it out about the anointing of kings, but for the most part, it's those seven).

Also, the turn by Anglicanism away from anything that can be called traditional Christianity is a relatively recent move. They were among the most conservative of churches until the 1970s.

To sum up, the affinity was because the Anglicans claimed apostolic succession too, and because of that, and both not being under Rome, some Anglicans had an affinity for the Orthodox and reached out to them. (Looking for a pre-'Reformation' church to grant them legitimacy, since Mother Rome would do no such thing.) There was intercommunion in practice in some places (the Greeks and the Episcopalians). But some Orthodox such as Raphael of Brooklyn 100 years ago got wise that the Anglo-Catholics didn't speak for Anglicanism.

Also, the turn by Anglicanism away from anything that can be called traditional Christianity is a relatively recent move. They were among the most conservative of churches until the 1970s.

I dunno. Maybe on paper, but unbelief has been pretty common among them since the 'Enlightenment' (America's founding fathers: nominal Episcopalians who were agnostics). Until recently, conservative in the sense of the Conservative or the Republican Party at prayer. Theologically, not so much.

Also, the turn by Anglicanism away from anything that can be called traditional Christianity is a relatively recent move. They were among the most conservative of churches until the 1970s.

I can certainly agree with the first sentence. But like TYF, I don't know about the second ... seems to me that the old-time Anglicans were relatively liberal for their time period. Not that that was all bad, mind you ... certainly nothing wrong with being tolerant of RCs, Protestants, and Orthodox.

Of course to both Catholics and Orthodox, the 'Reformation' was a turn away from traditional Christianity. That said, except for ecclesiology (Articles XIX and XXI), sacramentology, and ceremonial, classical Anglicans kept much of it: credal orthodoxy and the ancient Greek and medieval Catholic view of reason as conforming yourself to objective reality (which even the 'Enlightenment' didn't completely get rid of, so civilization still flourished), not doing whatever I want; anything that tries to stop me is just superstition (feminism and homosexualism for example).

And, again, to 19th-century Orthodox meeting the West, the break wasn't obvious since their first religious contact with Anglicans was from Anglo-Catholics approaching them, sincerely telling them what they wanted to hear.

The late Catholic columnist Joe Sobran wrote that he was thankful for having grown up in a Protestant country run by tolerant old-school liberal mainliners. Religious liberty and the free market, plus, actually, taking a break from immigration in the '20s in order for the country to catch its breath, created a great home for Catholics and Orthodox here by the '50s. (Halting immigration raised the opportunities and living standard for the Catholics and Orthodox already here.) A prosperity not possible back in Europe.

Besides the basics of the faith and the old Mass, the SSPX (the late, great Archbishop Lefebvre's group) and I have little in common, a reason why I can live in the official church as reformed by Pope Benedict. (But I acknowledge the good the SSPX does.) The European monarchists and fascists (not a dirty word, only a description) who run the SSPX are understandably suspicious of the American experiment's origin with heretics, as Rome was for many years. Yes, be careful, but economic and religious liberty are good.

And high-Episcopal parishes such as St Paul's, K Street in DC aren't doing Sarum. Sarum was a flowery version of the same Roman Rite as the Tridentine Mass. The Book of Common Prayer, old and new, is a new creation, not a translation of Sarum. American Anglo-Catholics historically use the BCP but with ceremonial based on pre-Vatican II (Tridentine) Catholic practice, varying by place and now of course mixed with modern Catholic practice too. (Again, modern Episcopalians, unlike Catholic liberals, love our stuff.)

And high-Episcopal parishes such as St Paul's, K Street in DC aren't doing Sarum. Sarum was a flowery version of the same Roman Rite as the Tridentine Mass. The Book of Common Prayer, old and new, is a new creation, not a translation of Sarum. American Anglo-Catholics historically use the BCP but with ceremonial based on pre-Vatican II (Tridentine) Catholic practice, varying by place and now of course mixed with modern Catholic practice too. (Again, modern Episcopalians, unlike Catholic liberals, love our stuff.)

Have the priests at Saint Paul's on K Street ever performed the Sarum Rite? I've been there a few times, and during Christmastide, I could have sworn that my guide for the evening mentioned something about the Sarum Rite. At the very least, I know that the priests were wearing "Sarum blue" vestments, but I think there was more to that particular Divine Liturgy than just vestmental-colours.

May I ask, are you part of the Anglican Ordinariate? I've really wanted to visit an Anglican Ordinariate church; I believe the closest one to D.C. is in Silver Spring. In fact I vaguely remember it being near the ACROD church of the area, but I could be wrong.

There have been both Anglican and Catholic re-enactments of Sarum; I don't know if K Street has ever done one. Sarum revivals were always more popular in England, among high-church liberal Anglicans there, than among Episcopalians. Sarum blue during Advent is fairly popular among Anglicans now.

I'm not in the American ordinariate but would like to see Mt. Calvary, Baltimore, now that it's Catholic: the pre-Vatican II ceremonial but in English that I like to see. I think the parish closest to DC is another ex-Episcopal one that kept its building, St Luke's, Bladensburg, MD.

The ordinariate's really for married ex-Anglican priests who want to be Catholic priests and for laity who miss the Prayer Book. I'm happy having the Tridentine Mass. (Here one group of converts from what was an extreme Anglo-Catholic parish, which did the Tridentine Mass in English, have done the same but are at a different parish from mine.)

I like the Prayer Book but I don't miss it so much that I need it every week.

The Prayer Book works with pre-Vatican II Catholic ceremonial - the American Anglo-Catholic style - in spite of Cranmer's Protestantism because Cranmer kept enough of the Catholic Church's general worldview for it to work.

Recognition of Anglican orders by some Orthodox patriarchates has always been with the understanding that IF the whole Anglican Communion gave up Protestantism and entered Orthodoxy, those patriarchates would receive them in their orders. Moot as it will never happen. So the Orthodox, including those patriarchates, treat Anglican orders just like the Catholic Church does: void. Such clergy are reordained.

Likely scenario: the white liberal high churchmen die off so the Anglican Communion becomes an 'empire strikes back' conservative African denomination, no longer British or American. But thoroughly Protestant. Back to square one: the 'Reformation' revisited, trying to convince classical Protestants to come back to the church. Might there be an Oxford Movement, Part II among them, in which, remaining non-papal, they turn east, like the American convert boomlet among evangelicals 20 years ago? Or become Catholic like in the first one? Maybe. The whole denomination switching? Probably not.

Likely scenario: the white liberal high churchmen die off so the Anglican Communion becomes an 'empire strikes back' conservative African denomination, no longer British or American.

More likely: the GAFCON group gets sufficiently mad at Cantuar (with egging on from the American neocon schisms) split the communion. Of course it's very important to those who have left for the Anglican political liberals to whither away, but once the homosexuality fight is done with in the American church it is also possible that the theological liberals get chased out, since there will be no longer any need of them.

Likely scenario: the white liberal high churchmen die off so the Anglican Communion becomes an 'empire strikes back' conservative African denomination, no longer British or American.

More likely: the GAFCON group gets sufficiently mad at Cantuar (with egging on from the American neocon schisms) split the communion. Of course it's very important to those who have left for the Anglican political liberals to whither away, but once the homosexuality fight is done with in the American church it is also possible that the theological liberals get chased out, since there will be no longer any need of them.

I just saw you live in Maryland. And for all this time I thought you lived in England.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Likely scenario: the white liberal high churchmen die off so the Anglican Communion becomes an 'empire strikes back' conservative African denomination, no longer British or American.

More likely: the GAFCON group gets sufficiently mad at Cantuar (with egging on from the American neocon schisms) split the communion. Of course it's very important to those who have left for the Anglican political liberals to whither away, but once the homosexuality fight is done with in the American church it is also possible that the theological liberals get chased out, since there will be no longer any need of them.

A lot of that seems to fit what I wrote. Sure, there might be a big split but again the white liberal high churchmen are dying out: the Episcopalians and the dominant faction of the Church of England. I can imagine Parliament disestablishing the C of E, after which, like the American 'neocons', the English Evangelicals will go under the Africans. You'll have an African denomination with a few British and American members, not a British or American one. Mainstream Western society, while still culturally Christian (political correctness is a Christian heresy on steroids), no longer needs liberal churches, which is why the mainline, including the liberal high Anglicans I mentioned, is disappearing.

Can someone please explain to me the English masses' appreciation of Protestantism in the decades after Henry VIII?

In about 1553, Henry VIII's Protestant successor, King Edward VI, named his Protestant relative Jane Grey queen over his illegitimate Catholic relative Mary, who was nonetheless named in Henry VIII's will to have preference as Queen. Edward VI died and the governing council declared Jane Queen.

Meanwhile, Mary raised an army in the east England. She outgunned the Protestant commander, Dudley, who was Jane's father in law and who had played the leading role in the London government at that point. While he was en route to battle, the governing council, who I believe was headed by Catholics, switched sides and announced Mary was Queen and Jane was an imposter. Personally, I find that ridiculous, because King Edward VI was the one who nominated Jane as his successor, so she was not an imposter. And on top of that, the governing ("privy") council was the one who had itself declared Jane the Queen before it now called her an imposter.

Dudley was overpowered at least mentally by this change of affairs, unready to fight Mary and go against the council. So he accepted the council's decision, recognized Mary, and even accepted Catholicism after opposing it previously, but they still executed him for treason. Jane for her part didn't accept Catholicism and was beheaded.

What is especially confusing for me in this state of affairs is that Wikipedia says that Dudley and the change to Protestantism were both extremely unpopular and that this explains much of his defeat. In fact, the very powerful King Henry VIII had changed England to Protestantism, and today perhaps 2/3 or more of the English are Protestant. So was Protestantism simply an unpopular, limited, minority movement among the nobility and some social sectors in 16th century England?

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Can someone please explain to me the English masses' appreciation of Protestantism in the decades after Henry VIII?

In about 1553, Henry VIII's Protestant successor, King Edward VI, named his Protestant relative Jane Grey queen over his illegitimate Catholic relative Mary, who was nonetheless named in Henry VIII's will to have preference as Queen. Edward VI died and the governing council declared Jane Queen.

Meanwhile, Mary raised an army in the east England. She outgunned the Protestant commander, Dudley, who was Jane's father in law and who had played the leading role in the London government at that point. While he was en route to battle, the governing council, who I believe was headed by Catholics, switched sides and announced Mary was Queen and Jane was an imposter. Personally, I find that ridiculous, because King Edward VI was the one who nominated Jane as his successor, so she was not an imposter. And on top of that, the governing ("privy") council was the one who had itself declared Jane the Queen before it now called her an imposter.

Dudley was overpowered at least mentally by this change of affairs, unready to fight Mary and go against the council. So he accepted the council's decision, recognized Mary, and even accepted Catholicism after opposing it previously, but they still executed him for treason. Jane for her part didn't accept Catholicism and was beheaded.

What is especially confusing for me in this state of affairs is that Wikipedia says that Dudley and the change to Protestantism were both extremely unpopular and that this explains much of his defeat. In fact, the very powerful King Henry VIII had changed England to Protestantism, and today perhaps 2/3 or more of the English are Protestant. So was Protestantism simply an unpopular, limited, minority movement among the nobility and some social sectors in 16th century England?

Not my specialist subject, but some observations:

Henry VIII didn't exactly change England to Protestantism. He broke with Rome, and made himself head of the church, but the church retained much of its Catholic heritage. It was nothing at all like modern day Protestantism.

In those days, the masses would not have known much about what was going on, and even if they did would not have understood the theological differences. They would have known though that picking the wrong side could lead to a death sentence.

Catholicism was seen as a foreign religion, and nationalistic fervour is a very easy thing to use to rally support. Lutheranism's flourishing in Germany is a similar example. The Catholicism of that day was also very corrupt, e.g. the abusive practices of indulgences.

Likely scenario: the white liberal high churchmen die off so the Anglican Communion becomes an 'empire strikes back' conservative African denomination, no longer British or American. But thoroughly Protestant. Back to square one: the 'Reformation' revisited, trying to convince classical Protestants to come back to the church. Might there be an Oxford Movement, Part II among them, in which, remaining non-papal, they turn east, like the American convert boomlet among evangelicals 20 years ago? Or become Catholic like in the first one? Maybe. The whole denomination switching? Probably not.

Let's hope. Evangelical, Orthodox or Roman Catholic would be better than the current paganism in many liberal high church Anglican parishes.

Regrettably, it has to be admitted that the Orthodox Church and many in the Anglican Church have today found themselves on the opposite sides of the abyss that divides traditional Christians from Christians of liberal trend. Certainly, inside the Anglican Community there remain many “traditionalists”, especially in the South and the East, but the liberal trend is also quite noticeable, especially in the West and in the North. Protests against liberalism continue to be heard among Anglicans, as at the 2nd All African Bishops’ Conference held in late August. The Conference’s final document stated in particular, ‘We affirm the Biblical standard of the family as having marriage between a man and a woman as its foundation. One of the purposes of marriage is procreation of children some of whom grow to become the leaders of tomorrow’.

Of all the Protestant denominations, why does the Orthodox Church seem to have more affinity for Anglicans than all others? The Anglican church seems to have deviated further from Orthodox values than any other mainstream denomination. They even elect homosexual "bishops." So, I am confused as to why we Orthodox seem to profess more kinship with Anglicans than other Protestant denominations - especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce. All I can surmise is that the Anglicans are at least sacramental, but the Lutherans are too. And I personally have more respect for those that deny the sacraments than for those who profess to validate the sacraments while teaching demonic heresies. Can you guys help me understand? Forgive my ignorance.

I am going through Confirmation/Chrismation classes in the Anglican Church right now (Anglican Province of America).

My denomination, the Anglican Province of America, is the most conservative and "Orthodox" out of all Anglican denominations in the world. We do not allow women or homosexuals to become clergy. The biggest points we disagree with the Eastern Orthodox are the celibacy of bishops, filioque, and substitutionary atonement. There are probably others, but those are the ones I can think of from the top of my head. In fact, it's a distinct possibility that we may seek to "engage in discussions" with the Orthodox Church if things get any worse in Anglicanism.

My priest is one of the most Godly men I have ever met... more so than many Orthodox priests I have come into contact with. He's the only pastor or priest I have seen cry during the Eucharist because he was so moved. The Church welcomed me with opened arms (something I did not find in my local Greek Ethnic Club... excuse me I mean Greek Orthodox Church ). There is no doubt that the true religion is still being practiced in the Anglican Province of America.

Lots of people in my denomination would be Orthodox if it wasn't for the fact that many Orthodox (besides ROCOR and Antiochan) seem entirely unwilling to provide any type of Western Rite. In fact, many also say "Byzantine Rite or get out," which is something I find reprehensible. Greeks, Russians, Antiochans, etc. all have their particular cultural influences in their liturgies... why can't the West have the same? I commend the Antiochan church for attempting to grow their Western Rite churches so that Traditional Anglicans can return to a healthy church body.

Easterners and Westerners think differently when it comes to liturgy. As my priest puts it, Western liturgy tends to be linear. We may say long 15 minute prayers, but we only do it once per service. The East, on the other hand, likes to have a kind of cyclic journey in their liturgy, where each individual prayer might not be as long, but repetition is preferred over length.

Personally, I have no ancestral ties to Eastern Rite at all. It feels very unnatural for me to be in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and much more comfortable for me to observe Western Rite. Sure, I like Byzantine music... but it just doesn't have the same moving effect on me that Western plainchant does, or even a classic Anglican hymn.

Logged

"God became man, so that men might become gods." -- St. Athanasius

"His was the word that spake it,He took the bread and brake it,And what is word doth make it,That I believe and take it." - Queen Elizabeth I

Of all the Protestant denominations, why does the Orthodox Church seem to have more affinity for Anglicans than all others? The Anglican church seems to have deviated further from Orthodox values than any other mainstream denomination. They even elect homosexual "bishops." So, I am confused as to why we Orthodox seem to profess more kinship with Anglicans than other Protestant denominations - especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce. All I can surmise is that the Anglicans are at least sacramental, but the Lutherans are too. And I personally have more respect for those that deny the sacraments than for those who profess to validate the sacraments while teaching demonic heresies. Can you guys help me understand? Forgive my ignorance.

Selam

The great colonial power of Britain is viewed with irresistible romance in some quarters, even (or perhaps especially) if they suffered historical abuse from her.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

I am going through Confirmation/Chrismation classes in the Anglican Church right now (Anglican Province of America).

My denomination, the Anglican Province of America, is the most conservative and "Orthodox" out of all Anglican denominations in the world. We do not allow women or homosexuals to become clergy. The biggest points we disagree with the Eastern Orthodox are the celibacy of bishops, filioque, and substitutionary atonement. There are probably others, but those are the ones I can think of from the top of my head. In fact, it's a distinct possibility that we may seek to "engage in discussions" with the Orthodox Church if things get any worse in Anglicanism.

My priest is one of the most Godly men I have ever met... more so than many Orthodox priests I have come into contact with. He's the only pastor or priest I have seen cry during the Eucharist because he was so moved. The Church welcomed me with opened arms (something I did not find in my local Greek Ethnic Club... excuse me I mean Greek Orthodox Church ). There is no doubt that the true religion is still being practiced in the Anglican Province of America.

Lots of people in my denomination would be Orthodox if it wasn't for the fact that many Orthodox (besides ROCOR and Antiochan) seem entirely unwilling to provide any type of Western Rite. In fact, many also say "Byzantine Rite or get out," which is something I find reprehensible. Greeks, Russians, Antiochans, etc. all have their particular cultural influences in their liturgies... why can't the West have the same? I commend the Antiochan church for attempting to grow their Western Rite churches so that Traditional Anglicans can return to a healthy church body.

Easterners and Westerners think differently when it comes to liturgy. As my priest puts it, Western liturgy tends to be linear. We may say long 15 minute prayers, but we only do it once per service. The East, on the other hand, likes to have a kind of cyclic journey in their liturgy, where each individual prayer might not be as long, but repetition is preferred over length.

Personally, I have no ancestral ties to Eastern Rite at all. It feels very unnatural for me to be in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and much more comfortable for me to observe Western Rite. Sure, I like Byzantine music... but it just doesn't have the same moving effect on me that Western plainchant does, or even a classic Anglican hymn.

Forgive me, but there are so many mistaken assumptions and/or prejudices in the above that I don't even know where to begin. Especially during Lent.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

I am going through Confirmation/Chrismation classes in the Anglican Church right now (Anglican Province of America).

My denomination, the Anglican Province of America, is the most conservative and "Orthodox" out of all Anglican denominations in the world. We do not allow women or homosexuals to become clergy. The biggest points we disagree with the Eastern Orthodox are the celibacy of bishops, filioque, and substitutionary atonement. There are probably others, but those are the ones I can think of from the top of my head. In fact, it's a distinct possibility that we may seek to "engage in discussions" with the Orthodox Church if things get any worse in Anglicanism.

My priest is one of the most Godly men I have ever met... more so than many Orthodox priests I have come into contact with. He's the only pastor or priest I have seen cry during the Eucharist because he was so moved. The Church welcomed me with opened arms (something I did not find in my local Greek Ethnic Club... excuse me I mean Greek Orthodox Church ). There is no doubt that the true religion is still being practiced in the Anglican Province of America.

Lots of people in my denomination would be Orthodox if it wasn't for the fact that many Orthodox (besides ROCOR and Antiochan) seem entirely unwilling to provide any type of Western Rite. In fact, many also say "Byzantine Rite or get out," which is something I find reprehensible. Greeks, Russians, Antiochans, etc. all have their particular cultural influences in their liturgies... why can't the West have the same? I commend the Antiochan church for attempting to grow their Western Rite churches so that Traditional Anglicans can return to a healthy church body.

Easterners and Westerners think differently when it comes to liturgy. As my priest puts it, Western liturgy tends to be linear. We may say long 15 minute prayers, but we only do it once per service. The East, on the other hand, likes to have a kind of cyclic journey in their liturgy, where each individual prayer might not be as long, but repetition is preferred over length.

Personally, I have no ancestral ties to Eastern Rite at all. It feels very unnatural for me to be in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and much more comfortable for me to observe Western Rite. Sure, I like Byzantine music... but it just doesn't have the same moving effect on me that Western plainchant does, or even a classic Anglican hymn.

Forgive me, but there are so many mistaken assumptions and/or prejudices in the above that I don't even know where to begin. Especially during Lent.

Enlighten me, please. I'm still new here, so I'm willing to learn.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 04:06:45 PM by NoahB »

Logged

"God became man, so that men might become gods." -- St. Athanasius

"His was the word that spake it,He took the bread and brake it,And what is word doth make it,That I believe and take it." - Queen Elizabeth I

Title of video prepended to post to enforce compliance with forum rules against naked links. -PtA

« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 02:21:35 AM by PeterTheAleut »

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

I am going through Confirmation/Chrismation classes in the Anglican Church right now (Anglican Province of America).

My denomination, the Anglican Province of America, is the most conservative and "Orthodox" out of all Anglican denominations in the world. We do not allow women or homosexuals to become clergy. The biggest points we disagree with the Eastern Orthodox are the celibacy of bishops, filioque, and substitutionary atonement. There are probably others, but those are the ones I can think of from the top of my head. In fact, it's a distinct possibility that we may seek to "engage in discussions" with the Orthodox Church if things get any worse in Anglicanism.

My priest is one of the most Godly men I have ever met... more so than many Orthodox priests I have come into contact with. He's the only pastor or priest I have seen cry during the Eucharist because he was so moved. The Church welcomed me with opened arms (something I did not find in my local Greek Ethnic Club... excuse me I mean Greek Orthodox Church ). There is no doubt that the true religion is still being practiced in the Anglican Province of America.

Lots of people in my denomination would be Orthodox if it wasn't for the fact that many Orthodox (besides ROCOR and Antiochan) seem entirely unwilling to provide any type of Western Rite. In fact, many also say "Byzantine Rite or get out," which is something I find reprehensible. Greeks, Russians, Antiochans, etc. all have their particular cultural influences in their liturgies... why can't the West have the same? I commend the Antiochan church for attempting to grow their Western Rite churches so that Traditional Anglicans can return to a healthy church body.

Easterners and Westerners think differently when it comes to liturgy. As my priest puts it, Western liturgy tends to be linear. We may say long 15 minute prayers, but we only do it once per service. The East, on the other hand, likes to have a kind of cyclic journey in their liturgy, where each individual prayer might not be as long, but repetition is preferred over length.

Personally, I have no ancestral ties to Eastern Rite at all. It feels very unnatural for me to be in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and much more comfortable for me to observe Western Rite. Sure, I like Byzantine music... but it just doesn't have the same moving effect on me that Western plainchant does, or even a classic Anglican hymn.

The problem is that there's hasn't been a living, breathing "Western Orthodox" liturgy since the 11th Century. It kind of violates the spirit of Orthodox theology to go digging through old texts and trying to artificially revive the past.

The only real cure is to liberate the Orthodox Churches of the West from the control of the older churches and let things take their course for a couple of hundred years.

Believe me, though I find the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom to be very moving, I'm far from an anti-Western nut. I'd love to mix and match and combine Orthodoxy with Gregorian Chant and the Sarum Rite and Lutheran chorales and contemplative prayer and Holy Family imagery and so on and so forth but the result would be a heterodox chimera that doesn't do justice to the theology behind any of the them.

The only real cure is to liberate the Orthodox Churches of the West from the control of the older churches and let things take their course for a couple of hundred years.

You're positive this is the Orthodox way?

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

I am going through Confirmation/Chrismation classes in the Anglican Church right now (Anglican Province of America).

My denomination, the Anglican Province of America, is the most conservative and "Orthodox" out of all Anglican denominations in the world.......

There are a lot of churches that call themselves Anglican. Are you aware that the Anglican Province of America is not actually part of the Anglican Communion?

I am... though I would say it is those under the Archbishop of Canterbury who have apostatized. Theologically, we (and similar denominations, such as the Reformed Episcopal Church) are the "true" Anglican church.

I am going through Confirmation/Chrismation classes in the Anglican Church right now (Anglican Province of America).

My denomination, the Anglican Province of America, is the most conservative and "Orthodox" out of all Anglican denominations in the world. We do not allow women or homosexuals to become clergy. The biggest points we disagree with the Eastern Orthodox are the celibacy of bishops, filioque, and substitutionary atonement. There are probably others, but those are the ones I can think of from the top of my head. In fact, it's a distinct possibility that we may seek to "engage in discussions" with the Orthodox Church if things get any worse in Anglicanism.

My priest is one of the most Godly men I have ever met... more so than many Orthodox priests I have come into contact with. He's the only pastor or priest I have seen cry during the Eucharist because he was so moved. The Church welcomed me with opened arms (something I did not find in my local Greek Ethnic Club... excuse me I mean Greek Orthodox Church ). There is no doubt that the true religion is still being practiced in the Anglican Province of America.

Lots of people in my denomination would be Orthodox if it wasn't for the fact that many Orthodox (besides ROCOR and Antiochan) seem entirely unwilling to provide any type of Western Rite. In fact, many also say "Byzantine Rite or get out," which is something I find reprehensible. Greeks, Russians, Antiochans, etc. all have their particular cultural influences in their liturgies... why can't the West have the same? I commend the Antiochan church for attempting to grow their Western Rite churches so that Traditional Anglicans can return to a healthy church body.

Easterners and Westerners think differently when it comes to liturgy. As my priest puts it, Western liturgy tends to be linear. We may say long 15 minute prayers, but we only do it once per service. The East, on the other hand, likes to have a kind of cyclic journey in their liturgy, where each individual prayer might not be as long, but repetition is preferred over length.

Personally, I have no ancestral ties to Eastern Rite at all. It feels very unnatural for me to be in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and much more comfortable for me to observe Western Rite. Sure, I like Byzantine music... but it just doesn't have the same moving effect on me that Western plainchant does, or even a classic Anglican hymn.

The problem is that there's hasn't been a living, breathing "Western Orthodox" liturgy since the 11th Century. It kind of violates the spirit of Orthodox theology to go digging through old texts and trying to artificially revive the past.

The only real cure is to liberate the Orthodox Churches of the West from the control of the older churches and let things take their course for a couple of hundred years.

Believe me, though I find the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom to be very moving, I'm far from an anti-Western nut. I'd love to mix and match and combine Orthodoxy with Gregorian Chant and the Sarum Rite and Lutheran chorales and contemplative prayer and Holy Family imagery and so on and so forth but the result would be a heterodox chimera that doesn't do justice to the theology behind any of the them.

I'm not a liturgist (yet, anyway) and can't hold my own in a debate about this. I will say, however, St. Tikhon certainly saw Western Rite as a wonderful thing. Western rites are not dead by any means. The Holy Spirit has made sure of that.

Logged

"God became man, so that men might become gods." -- St. Athanasius

"His was the word that spake it,He took the bread and brake it,And what is word doth make it,That I believe and take it." - Queen Elizabeth I

I'm not a liturgist (yet, anyway) and can't hold my own in a debate about this. I will say, however, St. Tikhon certainly saw Western Rite as a wonderful thing. Western rites are not dead by any means. The Holy Spirit has made sure of that.

The only real cure is to liberate the Orthodox Churches of the West from the control of the older churches and let things take their course for a couple of hundred years.

You're positive this is the Orthodox way?

Might be. I have heard some Orthodox say as much. St. Tikhon was not infallible, of course.

So you're saying it was St. Tikhon who said:

Quote

The only real cure is to liberate the Orthodox Churches of the West from the control of the older churches and let things take their course for a couple of hundred years.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

No, sorry. I meant that I think St. Tikhon was wrong to support the Western Rite. I could be mistaken of course.

Oh, so it's him you had in mind as "violat[ing] the spirit of Orthodoxy," which, you do still think, is comprised in the statement that "the only real cure" to Western history would be "to liberate the Orthodox Churches of the West from the control of the older churches and let things take their course for a couple of hundred years."

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy